Michigan Court of Appeals AFFIRMS Arena Authority Preemption

Michigan – -(AmmoLand.com)- Last week, a three judge panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling in MOC & MGO v. CAA & SMG (the Grand Rapids arena authority). In the opinion, the court affirmed that the authority is preempted local unit of government subject to MCL 123.1101 et seq. as held in CADL v. MOC.

Ruling

If you recall, in 2016, members of MOC and MGO were asked to disarm or leave a women's expo in Grand Rapids at which the groups had leased a booth. The groups tried in vein to speak with management, whom only dug their heels in, leaving the groups no choice but to file suit. Last summer, the trail court agreed with MOC and MGO causing the arena authority to appeal.

However, while the preempted status of the arena authority was clear to the court, much was not. In what has been characterized as an opinion in search of a case, the court analyzed hypothetical facts not at issue. Even though no one was carrying concealed, the court ruled that the authority may regulate concealed carry in so far as it is already regulated under state law (MCL 28.425o) – something we did not dispute preempted entities may do. Further, even though the private event promoter was fine with us there, and had no policy regarding weapons, the court ruled that the arena authority can enforce private lessee policies, despite the clear language of 123.1102.

Basically, the court addressed things that were not relevant to the events that lead to the suit.

Despite the court doing it's level best to find things to rule against us on, the court ultimately had to agree with us when it came to our purpose for being there;

The arena authority is preempted, and the enforcement of their policy against Michigan Open Carry and Michigan Gun Owners was illegal. Period.

Michigan Gun Owners and Michigan Open Carry teamed up on this one to fight for the gun community, and we are pleased to say that we came out on top. If you like how we are fighting for you, please consider joining each organization and donating to our legal defense funds. We would not be able to fight these very important fights were it not for the support that we receive from our generous members and donors.

Lastly, we would like to thank our attorney Dean G. Greenblatt for representing us through this endeavor. Mr. Greenblatt has been a long time supporter of both organizations and we would not be where we are without him. Also, to Steve Sundeen, whom represented MGO at the trial level.

Michigan Open Carry, Inc is a Not-For-Profit organization that depends on our dues paying members to continue our operation. We are an all-volunteer organization. As such, no one is paid a salary and very few of the personal expenses of our officers are reimbursed. Won't you consider joining us or renewing as a dues paying member today? www.miopencarry.org.

In the first three lines of the quoted text, there are two egregious errors of English grammar and usage. First, the writer/typist does not know the difference between the words “vein” and “vain.” Second, the same person is equally ignorant of the difference between “who’ and “whom.” Come on, folks! Let’s be more intelligent than our opposition, the gun-grabbers who want to remove from us our means of self-defense! They are too ignorant, or too unprincipled, to realize that there was more unregulated booze in the country DURING Prohibition than there was before the 18th Amendment outlawed the use and consumption of most alcoholic beverages. Likewise, today’s anti-drug-abuse laws have little effect, since anyone who wants to “get high” or to “experiment” with drugs, can easily find an illegal source of supply for his/her “experimentation,” despite the many laws designed to prevent and/or punish the use of illegal drugs. What makes the gun grabbers think that it would be any different with firearms? However, I believe that the Firearms Abolitionists really don’t care about the country; they want complete and unprincipled power, just like famous gun-grabbers Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot. To use Charlton Heston’s words, “From my cold, dead hands!”

It seems there is no where you can be that doesn’t have problems with carrying guns whether open or concealed. If you are not brandishing a gun at some lilly liberal then it is none of his/her business if you have one on your side. A lot of these crybabies think it is the thing to do by criticizing gun toting people but they do not have the full picture. Their elite liberal masters are doing it for people control and they can’t succeed if someone has a gun that could shut their mouth. Constantly, fighting for your rights shouldn’t be necessary. Other people’s nose in your business should not be necessary. If we didn’t have liberals we wouldn’t have as many problems.

IMO, the Court was wrong in claiming the arena authority has the right to enforce some level of gun control on its patrons. The arena is opened for public use, and while the exercise of some rights can be disruptive, such as free speech, freedom of assembly, etc., the right to peaceably keep and bear arms is not. If the public has been invited to enter, or the citizen have purchased the right to enter, then the citizen has a right to be there. A citizen has a right to peaceably keep and bear arms anywhere he or she has a right to be. It is time to stop, block, prohibit those who would use their claim of private property rights to interfere with our right to keep and bear arms when they open their premises to the public for commerce or other lawful purpose. Non-disruptive exercise of rights trumps private property rights when the private property is opened to the public (and if the property owner is a corporation it has no rights not delegated by government anyway, and government has no right to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms that it can delegate to a legal fiction.)

The above does not comport with current legal theory, but it is consistent with the intent of the founders and the early years of our jurisprudence. Increment by increment, our rights have been deprived from us, and it is time to reverse the trend by challenging these private individual decisions by corporate officers (etc.) who think their government-issued privileges trump our rights.